Last year, as climate change deniers were up in arms over the so-called “Climategate” controversy involving alleged manipulation of climate data, one skeptical scientist proposed taking a fresh look. Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California-Berkeley and a self-described climate skeptic, undertook to review the temperature data underlying most global warming studies. Now his team has wrapped up their work, and it apparently solidifies the other studies’ findings.

Actually, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project found the Earth is getting even warmer than other climate scientists claim.

The findings have neither been peer-reviewed nor published, so some skeptics and deniers are as yet unsatisfied, but Muller says the group has submitted the papers for publication. Meanwhile, the data is all online for anyone’s review.

Muller said earlier this year that he was surprised by his own findings; now he accepts what other groups have been saying for years, that the Earth is getting warmer in most locations over time.

The BEST study is notable for a few reasons aside from Muller’s skepticism and the study’s funding sources, which include the climate-change-denying Charles and David Koch — it’s also a very comprehensive look, examining skeptics’ claims in detail and with a gigantic amount of data points. The study combined 1.6 billion temperature reports from 39,000 temperature stations around the globe, using 15 preexisting data archives.

The goal was to examine some of the most common claims from climate skeptics (let’s agree that there is a line between skepticism and denialism), which include: The poor quality of temperature monitoring stations; the poor siting of stations in cities, where they could be subject to urban heat-island effects; and the relatively small amount of available data employed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office and Climatic Research Unit.

Statisticians developed a new approach that let them use fragmented records, such as those from unreliable monitoring stations, which embiggened the overall data set by about five times. Muller’s team also used satellite images to divide the world into urban and rural areas, which allowed them to correct for heat-island effects. And they ranked the quality of the monitoring stations, and found even poor stations accurately track temperature changes over time.

Their conclusion? “Global warming is real.” Very real, if their numbers are to be believed — the BEST analysis found that at the locations that showed warming, temperatures rose by an average 1 to 2 degrees Celsius, much higher than the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimate of 0.64 degrees C.

“Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate,” he wrote in an op-ed about the work. Adding: “How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.”

_________________2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."

October 24th, 2011, 3:53 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9589Location: Dallas

Re: "Global Warming is Real" confirms skeptic

I'm not sure when skeptics started using scare tactics to get people to believe in something they themselves didn't believe... but okay.

Funny thing is, the data/proof is all there for you to see - then again, I guess only a very small percentage of us ever require date/proof to come to a conclusion.

Prior to ever seeing strong evidence on either side I put this through my common sense filter. Common sense tells me more people = warmer temperatures given all the by products of our daily existence. I'm not surprised to start seeing data point this out finally. All that said, I still don't know all the ramifications of this warming trend and how harmful (or benefitial), it may be.

WarEr, there is a huge difference between this article and the one you linked. This articles never says that the data is unassailable or undeniable. Quite the opposite. They flat out state that the data is open for review. But, when all the data points to one conclusion, it is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest to simply claim otherwise. If, however you analyzed the data and came to a different conclusion based on what the data says, then that would be honest and (in my opinion) legitimate.

That said, in my opinion the most important part of the article is the last two lines that read: “How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.”

This is absolutely key. The data shows that the earth has warmed. That should be indisputable at this point. But, that data doesn't show why, nor what the long term repercussions of said warming will be. That is the great, as of yet unanswered question, and is where the doomsday predictions lose me. In my opinion, we should take common sense, logical steps to try to limit pollution and environmental damage, while allowing the scientists to continue studying the effects and trying to predict long term impacts. We should not, however, enact sweeping, draconian measures that will have huge financial and (most likely) unintended environmental impacts.

Of course, I'm no scientist or expert, so take my opinion for whatever it's worth...

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

October 24th, 2011, 4:32 pm

regularjoe12

Off. Coordinator – Joe Lombardi

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 3955Location: Davison Mi

Re: "Global Warming is Real" confirms skeptic

Touchdown Jesus wrote:

WarEr, there is a huge difference between this article and the one you linked. This articles never says that the data is unassailable or undeniable. Quite the opposite. They flat out state that the data is open for review. But, when all the data points to one conclusion, it is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest to simply claim otherwise. If, however you analyzed the data and came to a different conclusion based on what the data says, then that would be honest and (in my opinion) legitimate.

That said, in my opinion the most important part of the article is the last two lines that read: “How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.”

This is absolutely key. The data shows that the earth has warmed. That should be indisputable at this point. But, that data doesn't show why, nor what the long term repercussions of said warming will be. That is the great, as of yet unanswered question, and is where the doomsday predictions lose me. In my opinion, we should take common sense, logical steps to try to limit pollution and environmental damage, while allowing the scientists to continue studying the effects and trying to predict long term impacts. We should not, however, enact sweeping, draconian measures that will have huge financial and (most likely) unintended environmental impacts.

Of course, I'm no scientist or expert, so take my opinion for whatever it's worth...

sounds about right to me.

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

October 24th, 2011, 6:34 pm

njroar

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 2833

Re: "Global Warming is Real" confirms skeptic

If you remember the problems with the data around the climategate wasn't that the data was read wrong, it was that data was removed and deleted. And this chart does the exact same thing. If you continue to use bad data and remove the data that showed the cooler temperatures during some of that time, you end up with the hockey stick graph.

The major issues like the actual thermometers being in unreliable locations (right under heaters or other mechanical equipment that gives off heat) aren't addressed. This basically just says, ok, here's the data we used, I dare you to try to come up with another hypothesis.... Of course you're going to end up with the same results.

The biggest thing that pops out instantly is the scale of the graph. Any graph can make miniscule raises and drops look huge when you put it at a scale of .5. Change it to 1 and it completely changes the graph to look almost static. And that's false. Also, this graph, like the hockey stick graph that was released prior to climategate, shows steady increase from 1980 on. There was a major drop in the early to mid 90's where it was colder than prior to the 80's that isn't represented here. There's a miniscule little drop on the chart shown there, which is wrong.

I'm also curious how the media and subsequent internet weather has played into this. More and more you're seeing them use heat index instead of temperature to make it seem like its leaps and bounds hotter over the summer, when in a lot of places there were record lows or below average temperatures. But from listening to the radio or television, you'd think we were on the verge of melting. Its a perception thing and if they make enough people believe that things are getting drastically warmer instead of it staying within the normal up and down cycle, then they'll eventually believe it, much like the whole discussion on 2nd hand smoking.

October 24th, 2011, 10:11 pm

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3039Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: "Global Warming is Real" confirms skeptic

TDJ,

I wasn't so much trying to use the article as a counter argument to what Pablo had posted, in as much I was trying to illustrate that in the 70's the whole Global Freezing was the topic of the day. So what that lead me to consider was that people who get paid a lot of money to form hypothesis, built upon hypothesis, generate a scare. Then those who are already well established, see the control that they can inflict upon the common by creating regulations, feeding the scare tactics, and pumping the "truths" into the airwaves. It is fairly simple in that, "a lie told often enough, becomes the truth."

While researching another matter which I just happened to hear this morning I stumbled across this information. To set it up, the Pastor was discussing the Earth's age and the common arguments via creationsim and anti-creationism. Anyway, he spoke of a Professor from UTEP who did a study on the deteriation of the electromagnetic field that surrounds the Earth. (Sadly I forgot the Dr.'s name) This doctor made mention of a Dutch scientist 142 years ago who studied the earths EMF and discovered that it is declining at a KNOWN rate, each year. So we have 142 years of evidence of the deteriation of the EMF. By reverse dating that, they were able to show how the EMF would make Earth molten due to the heat it generates at 20,000 years. So the 12 billion year evolution calendar is false according to known science.

Sorry Pablo I wasn't trying to hijack the thread, this just seemed to tie in to the conversation, and it was something I was going to share in the scientific thread. If you wish to move it I'm cool with that.

_________________2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."

Oops. Turns out this guy isn't quite being 100% honest. I fell for it. I think the most damning part of the article is this:

Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.

‘I am baffled as to what he’s trying to do,’ Prof Curry said.

Prof Ross McKittrick, a climate statistics expert from Guelph University in Ontario, added: ‘You don’t look for statistically significant evidence of a standstill.

‘You look for statistically significant evidence of change.’

That just screams of someone with an agenda who already has their mind made up. Sad.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

I read about that this weekend. In the article I saw, it said that the combined land/sea data showed no temperature increase, so they eliminated the sea data in order to achieve a slight rise in temperatures.

Leaked documents suggest that an organization known for attacking climate science is planning a new push to undermine the teaching of global warming in public schools, the latest indication that climate change is becoming a part of the nation’s culture wars.

The documents, from a nonprofit organization in Chicago called the Heartland Institute, outline plans to promote a curriculum that would cast doubt on the scientific finding that fossil fuel emissions endanger the long-term welfare of the planet. “Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective,” one document said.

While the documents offer a rare glimpse of the internal thinking motivating the campaign against climate science, defenders of science education were preparing for battle even before the leak. Efforts to undermine climate-science instruction are beginning to spread across the country, they said, and they fear a long fight similar to that over the teaching of evolution in public schools.

In a statement, the Heartland Institute acknowledged that some of its internal documents had been stolen. But it said its president had not had time to read the versions being circulated on the Internet on Tuesday and Wednesday and was therefore not in a position to say whether they had been altered.

Heartland did declare one two-page document to be a forgery, although its tone and content closely matched that of other documents that the group did not dispute. In an apparent confirmation that much of the material, more than 100 pages, was authentic, the group apologized to donors whose names became public as a result of the leak.

The documents included many details of the group’s operations, including salaries, recent personnel actions and fund-raising plans and setbacks. They were sent by e-mail to leading climate activists this week by someone using the name “Heartland insider” and were quickly reposted to many climate-related Web sites.

Heartland said the documents were not from an insider but were obtained by a caller pretending to be a board member of the group who was switching to a new e-mail address. “We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes,” the organization said.

Although best-known nationally for its attacks on climate science, Heartland styles itself as a libertarian organization with interests in a wide range of public-policy issues. The documents say that it expects to raise $7.7 million this year.

The documents raise questions about whether the group has undertaken partisan political activities, a potential violation of federal tax law governing nonprofit groups. For instance, the documents outline “Operation Angry Badger,” a plan to spend $612,000 to influence the outcome of recall elections and related fights this year in Wisconsin over the role of public-sector unions.

Tax lawyers said Wednesday that tax-exempt groups were allowed to undertake some types of lobbying and political education, but that because they are subsidized by taxpayers, they are prohibited from direct involvement in political campaigns.

The documents also show that the group has received money from some of the nation’s largest corporations, including several that have long favored action to combat climate change.

The documents typically say that those donations were earmarked for projects unrelated to climate change, like publishing right-leaning newsletters on drug and technology policy. Nonetheless, several of the companies hastened on Wednesday to disassociate themselves from the organization’s climate stance.

“We absolutely do not endorse or support their views on the environment or climate change,” said Sarah Alspach, a spokeswoman for GlaxoSmithKline, a multinational drug company shown in the documents as contributing $50,000 in the past two years to support a medical newsletter.

A spokesman for Microsoft, another listed donor, said that the company believes that “climate change is a serious issue that demands immediate worldwide action.” The company is shown in the documents as having contributed $59,908 last year to a Heartland technology newsletter. But the Microsoft spokesman, Mark Murray, said the gift was not a cash contribution but rather the value of free software, which Microsoft gives to thousands of nonprofit groups.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the Heartland documents was what they did not contain: evidence of contributions from the major publicly traded oil companies, long suspected by environmentalists of secretly financing efforts to undermine climate science.

But oil interests were nonetheless represented. The documents say that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation contributed $25,000 last year and was expected to contribute $200,000 this year. Mr. Koch is one of two brothers who have been prominent supporters of libertarian causes as well as other charitable endeavors. They control Koch Industries, one of the country’s largest private companies and a major oil refiner.

The documents suggest that Heartland has spent several million dollars in the past five years in its efforts to undermine climate science, much of that coming from a person referred to repeatedly in the documents as “the Anonymous Donor.” A guessing game erupted Wednesday about who that might be.

The documents say that over four years ending in 2013, the group expects to have spent some $1.6 million on financing the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, an entity that publishes periodic reports attacking climate science and holds lavish annual conferences. (Environmental groups refer to the conferences as “Denialpalooza.”)

Heartland’s latest idea, the documents say, is a plan to create a curriculum for public schools intended to cast doubt on mainstream climate science and budgeted at $200,000 this year. The curriculum would claim, for instance, that “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy.”

It is in fact not a scientific controversy. The vast majority of climate scientists say that emissions generated by humans are changing the climate and putting the planet at long-term risk, although they are uncertain about the exact magnitude of that risk. Whether and how to rein in emissions of greenhouse gases has become a major political controversy in the United States, however.

The National Center for Science Education, a group that has had notable success in fighting for accurate teaching of evolution in the public schools, has recently added climate change to its agenda in response to pleas from teachers who say they feel pressure to water down the science.

Mark S. McCaffrey, programs and policy director for the group, which is in Oakland, Calif., said the Heartland documents revealed that “they continue to promote confusion, doubt and debate where there really is none.”

This is worth a read. This guy has been pushing renewable energy for 30+ years, is a liberal and even he doesn't agree with the findings of the scientific community. Others have been able to be brushed away, but this guy is a known commodity in the industry.

February 16th, 2012, 12:24 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9589Location: Dallas

Re: "Global Warming is Real" confirms skeptic

njroar wrote:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html

This is worth a read. This guy has been pushing renewable energy for 30+ years, is a liberal and even he doesn't agree with the findings of the scientific community. Others have been able to be brushed away, but this guy is a known commodity in the industry.